06 March 2002
Rumsfeld, Franks Brief on Operation Anaconda
(Operation Anaconda/al Qaeda/Taliban, terrorists/refuge, humanitarian
aid/Afghanistan, media/military operations, Navy SEAL/al Qaeda, U.S.
troops/Afghanistan, Coalition Forces/casualties, choppers/Operation
Anaconda, U.S. casualties/Anaconda) (6870)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy R. Franks,
commander in chief, U.S. Central Command, briefed reporters March 6 at
the Pentagon.
Following is the Pentagon transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Wednesday, March 6, 2002 - 11:30 p.m. EST
(Also participating was Gen. Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief, U.S.
Central Command)
Rumsfeld: All right. Let's see here.
One day in a burst of enthusiasm I said that from time to time when
General Franks is in town we'd bring him down here. I have done so.
Let me make a few remarks first.
The operation, Anaconda, continues. The Afghan coalition forces are
turning up the pressure on the al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the
mountains south of Gardez. The battle very likely will take some time
to play out. I believe that the outcome is reasonably assured, that
the people who have been in the battle will either be -- surrender or
be killed in the days ahead.
The forces we face represent very hardened elements of al Qaeda and
Taliban -- true dead-enders. We expect that they will -- we expected
that they would put up a fierce fight, and they have, and they are.
And they continue to do so. But from everything we've seen, the
coalition forces are certainly up to the challenge.
We've said on numerous occasions that the battle moves from cities to
tunnels to caves to mountains, and that the task of hunting down and
rooting out the terrorist networks will be difficult and dangerous,
and that lives will be lost. Indeed, we have lost eight American
service members in this current operation thus far, and many hundreds
at this moment are putting their lives at risk to deal with this
brutal and determined adversary.
Their service and their sacrifice should be a lesson to those who
contemplate that terror against America can work. If you attack the
United States, if people try to kill our men, women and children, we
intend to stop them.
There will be a penalty. And the American people are patient, they're
determined, and our forces are certainly as courageous as they are
relentless. Our objective is not revenge, it is not retribution;
rather, it's to protect our country and our people from further
attack. It is just that simple. You cannot defend against terrorists
by hunkering down. You simply must go after them. That is the only
proper defense -- is an offense.
A terrorist under fire in the mountains of Afghanistan is a terrorist
who has bigger problems than trying to plan the next attack on the
United States. The only defense is offense. On October 7th, when this
campaign began in Afghanistan, we set out a series of military
objectives. And we have not only met them but, in many cases,
surpassed those objectives. We've driven the Taliban from power. We've
disrupted the al Qaeda's ability to use Afghanistan as a haven or a
sanctuary where terrorists can be trained and then attack others. We
have helped to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, delivering relief to
the Afghan people, and we are currently assisting the interim Afghan
government in its efforts to bring peace and stability to the Afghan
people.
We continue to gather intelligence to help us prevent future terrorist
attacks and to disrupt additional terrorist activities. We've captured
or killed many hundreds of Taliban and al Qaeda forces and a number of
their senior leaders. The battle is now joined. It certainly is not
the first major military engagement of this war on terror, and it will
not be the last.
U.S. objectives going forward are very simple, and that is that there
be no sanctuary, that there be no safe haven. The president said it in
the first week of this global war on terror; that the task is to go
after terrorists and nations that harbor terrorists. The task is to
pursue and run to ground terrorist networks across Afghanistan and
across the globe. It's to train and equip forces in friendly countries
that are facing terrorist threats, such as we're doing in the
Philippines and in Yemen. It's to help them eliminate the possibility
of their countries becoming sanctuaries for terrorists. As we drive
them out of Afghanistan, they either go to the mountains or they blend
into the cities or they go across borders, or they leave and go to
another country. And to the extent we do not help countries, for
example, like Yemen, they very likely will turn that country into a
sanctuary or a haven for terrorists, and that's unacceptable.
Our task is to establish military-to-military relationships with
countries that are committed to helping us fight the war on terrorism.
With our partners, the task is to disrupt the activities of terrorist
networks and to deal with those states that sponsor, aid, abet and
tolerate terrorists, and particularly those that are pursuing weapons
of mass destruction.
If one asks our policy, it is that there be no sanctuary for
terrorists in Afghanistan or elsewhere. We have to deny them
sanctuary, we have to deny them safe haven, and we have to deny them
the ability to train still more terrorists so that they can undertake
still more violent attacks on the United States, our friends and our
allies.
General Franks?
Franks: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I'll say that it's a pleasure to
be back in Washington. I came up yesterday for the purpose of giving
the secretary an update on our activities inside Afghanistan. Had an
opportunity this morning to give President Bush an update as well.
I am pleased with the operation as we see it ongoing right now in
Afghanistan -- Operation Anaconda. I think what we see is Americans in
uniform doing the job that we have trained them to do, equipped them
to do and asked them to do. As the secretary said, I think the days
ahead are going to continue to be dangerous days for our forces that
are committed to this effort, but the alternative to taking such risk
is not acceptable, in my view.
And so I'll give you a quick update on the numbers of forces we see in
Afghanistan right now. I think the U.S. force structure right now is
around 5,200, 5,300 people. That force is in fact smaller than the
coalition force that we see, including the International Security
Forces under the lead of Great Britain, located in Kabul. The area
inside Afghanistan continues to be very messy, it continues to be very
dangerous. The number of casualties that we have up to this point is
as the secretary reported it. We have during Operation Anaconda lost
eight Americans, killed in action; a bit more than 40 wounded in
action. About half of those 40, as I said the other day, have been
returned to duty. And the only additional casualties that we have
added since I last spoke with you was three casualties today, non-
battle related; as a matter of fact, three casualties related to
altitude sickness, because this area where we're operating in some
cases is above 10,000 feet in elevation.
And so those are the activities that we see ongoing now, and we'll
continue them until we accomplish, as the secretary said, the
destruction of the forces inside this pocket.
And then we'll continue our operations inside Afghanistan.
Sir.
Rumsfeld: Charlie.
Q: Mr. Secretary and the general, are you all surprised at the growing
scope of this battle? Buster Hagenbeck said in Bagram today that what
he called "fundamentalist leaders" in the area had called for a jihad
against the United States and its allies and that the al Qaeda and
Taliban force had swollen in very recent days from perhaps 200 to
perhaps as many as eight (hundred) or 900. Could you talk about that
and perhaps what you're adding to the force -- helicopters -- attack
helicopters and troops?
Rumsfeld: With respect to the first part of it, it's not possible to
know precisely the number of people that are engaged in the activity,
as you undoubtedly know, and as others on the ground have suggested,
we'll know a lot more when it's over, in terms of what number of
people it was. We've been looking at that area for weeks --
Franks: Yes, sir. Weeks.
Rumsfeld: -- and have a great deal of intelligence information, but it
is -- it's not possible to have a good count.
Franks: And I would not -- I would not take issue at all with what the
commander on the ground said about this. I think, when one backs away
from Operation Anaconda, I think it's possible at any particular point
inside this objective area, to say "Oh, gosh. I didn't realize that
there would be the size of the force in this area." I don't think we
have changed the assessment of the force in this general Gardez area
and inside this objective area that the forces went into. Tactical
surprise by any unit as it moves to an assault location or as it
continues to clear these revetments and caves and so forth is not, I
would say, surprising to me. And so I would not take issue. I think
the size of the force in the operating area has not been a surprise.
To the particulars of where it may be on a given day, it would not
surprise me at all to see some tactical --
Q: Could you give us, perhaps, some figures on the U.S.-led force now
and what you're adding to it in terms of attack helicopters, that kind
of thing?
Franks: Sure. We have -- we have brought some Marine helicopters in
and positioned them inside Afghanistan, and I'd rather not say exactly
where, but we have provided some additional robustness there with
attack helicopters. We have positioned forces inside this objective
area.
It seems to me that when I spoke with you the day before yesterday I
said we were somewhere around 800. We have put 200-300 additional
Americans inside this operation. Once again, that has not been in
response to surprise, it has been in accordance with our plan to
reposition our forces inside the objective area as necessary over time
in order to completely clear it.
Q: And the total size of a future U.S.-led force?
Rumsfeld: I'm sorry. We should probably get a couple of other
questions here.
Q: May I do a follow-up, if I may, Mr. Secretary, just a very short
three-part question for the CINC --
Rumsfeld: No, no, no, no.
Q: Well, all right. You've talked about the -- does that mean
something, that finger going up, sir? (Laughs.)
Rumsfeld: One question.
Q: You've talked about the quantity. But a reporter who went in with
the 10th Mountain on the second day said when he got to the LZ there
was no element of surprise, they were met by heavy machine gun fire,
.50 caliber, and some very accurate mortar fire. Were you surprised at
the level of intensity and the apparent skill of the people we're
fighting?
Franks: I think we have not been at all surprised that we are finding
al Qaeda and forces of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, perhaps
also Chechens in this area. As the secretary said, and I think I said
on Monday, we have been preparing for this operation for some period
of time.
I think given the size of an area, perhaps 60-70 square miles, one is
not going to have the precision of where those forces may be at any
point in time. And so I believe that tactical surprise was, in fact,
gained when the operation went in, keeping in mind that there were a
great many landing zones involved and a great many approaches involved
as we moved into this objective area. And the fact that one or two of
these areas may have been very heavily enforced or reinforced and that
our forces would encounter immediately mortar fire, no, that's really
not surprising. It's deadly, it's bad; it's also war. And I think
there's an expectation that we'll face that.
Q: May I do a follow-up, just a brief follow-up, Mr. Secretary, a very
small follow-up? A Pakistan military official has described these
people as some of the best guerrilla fighters in the world. Do you
agree with that? Are they that good?
Franks: I would characterize them as very hard and capable and
dedicated fighters. I'd probably leave it at that.
You know, if you look at individual soldiers, I will tell you that
these soldiers are not a match for American soldiers that we have on
the ground in there right now in terms of training, in terms of
equipment. But at the same time, very dedicated troops with great
resolve who have had adequate training and have very strong will are
the kinds of soldiers that we are finding in some cases in this area.
Rumsfeld: They are not, however, fighting for their own country, or
for their families, or their own homes. They're invaders in a foreign
country who are there to train other people to go out and kill people
across the globe.
Pam?
Q: Could you talk a little bit on a more technical side of this? You
mentioned -- I think it was yesterday or earlier before -- the full
reports that are coming out that much of this battle can be monitored
in real time on -- by a video camera. How much are you getting to
watch, and how much do folks in helicopters get to see?
Franks: I am able to watch -- obviously, we do not -- we don't have
the ability to see the entire battlefield all of the time. I think
that it's well known that we have the ability to -- in many cases to
isolate on a portion of the battlefield, and not only inside
Afghanistan, as I know General Hagenbeck mentioned, but also at a
variety of our headquarters, we have the ability to observe parts of
the battlefield in real time. Now, the answer to how much of that I
observe, just on some days a good deal, on other days very little, and
I'll take reports and information from others and then review tapes.
Q: General Franks?
Q: Mr. Secretary, what do you make of reports that other al Qaeda
elements are attempting to regroup inside Pakistan near the border for
the apparent purpose of communicating with other al Qaeda outside of
Afghanistan?
Rumsfeld: I don't doubt it. I've seen these reports. Needless to say,
as we find pockets of al Qaeda, we're going to go after them.
Q: Have the Pakistani authorities made efforts to eliminate them?
Rumsfeld: The Pakistan authorities have been terrific. They have been,
if you think about -- there's no map, but the current activity is very
near the Pakistan border, and they do have people along the border and
have been very helpful. To the extent they find people that need to be
detained, they do it.
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: Yes?
Q: Given what you said up front, what does that mean that the American
military is in an ever-expanding (world policeman ?) role? And do you
see any decrease in the operational tempo of the armed services
between now and the end of your first four-year term?
Rumsfeld: I do not think of us as the world's policemen at all. I
think of us as -- the United States military as a capable -- the most
capable military on the face of the Earth, that has an opportunity and
responsibility to contribute to peace and stability in the world, and
that a -- police work is very much a national task. We do not do
police work in the United States. We do not do police work in other
countries except on very rare occasions as we go in and then the task
evolves from a military one to a peacekeeping one, at which point we
try to move our forces out.
We have a big, tough job, and it clearly calls for us to find
terrorists and to find countries that are harboring terrorists.
But no, I don't think it -- and I think it also -- as your question
suggests it creates an enormous incentive for the defense
establishment to stop using the men and women in the armed forces for
things other than military tasks. We have them spread all over town as
detailees, in one place and another. We have some still in the Sinai
that are down there in a non-military function, and we need to modify
the size of that force. We have people in different countries, where
they're being drawn down, as the NATO mission is drawn down and a more
-- a police mission takes its place.
So I feel that we are -- we need to use the tempo, the demands that
exist on our force today as a way of getting our force reoriented, out
of non-military functions, toward military functions.
Q: But as the presence increases -- let's call it "presence" for the
moment -- and you don't get rid of any of these old commitments --
Rumsfeld: We do.
Q: But --
Rumsfeld: We are.
Q: We haven't pulled the guys out of the Sinai, for instance. We
haven't -- we're talking about it. We haven't done it.
Rumsfeld: We're working on it. And we've pulled people out of Bosnia,
for example. That's taking place. We're pulling detailees from around
the United States. We're resisting the use of defense establishment
people for non-military functions to the extent they are being used.
There's a memorandum of understanding as to what the exit strategy, if
you will, would be for U.S. military people, for example, assisting in
airports. They're doing that. They should do that, for a short period,
but then they have to move on and do other things as people are hired
to do those jobs. Same things with Border Patrols or Customs or INS.
We've got too big a task to do to contribute to peace and stability in
the world to be doing a lot of things that are -- can be done as well
by non-military personnel.
Q: General Franks, can you tell us whether you monitored the battle
over the weekend? And if so, could you provide us more detail?
Franks: I have not -- you mean the tapes?
Q: Yes.
Franks: No. No, I did not watch -- if you're talking about the
incident where we had our people killed in action, no, I have not seen
that tape.
Q: Was the second incident monitored in real time? Were you able to
focus on that --
Franks: The second --
Q: -- where the six soldiers were killed?
Franks: The incident that I saw in real time was the one where that
force was extracted, as I think I mentioned on Monday. And I certainly
will review the tapes. I am -- I'm aware of the views of a variety of
people who were in that mission, and so sure, I will take a look at
them. But I haven't seen them yet.
Rumsfeld: Yes?
Q: Could you also just -- (inaudible) -- the last 24 hours --
Q: General --
Rumsfeld: Wait, wait. And that's three. Let's just each do one or two,
but otherwise, we'll never get around the room.
Q: General Franks, to follow up on that, you did not see the tape of
the incident where the -- where Petty Officer Roberts fell out of the
helicopter, right?
Franks: Right.
Q: A couple of days ago, you said that he fell out, but you didn't
mention that he was dragged away by enemy forces and executed.
Franks: Right.
Q: Did you not know that at the time?
Franks: To be very honest with you, I know of -- I have been told of
the report. No, I did not know that at that time. And to be very
honest with you, I don't know that for myself yet.
I have spoken with people who in fact were on that mission, as I said
on Monday, and the view that I got was I think there are a variety of
possibilities of the way this occurred. On Monday what I knew, and
what I still know, is that the petty officer in fact fell out of the
aircraft. Whether he had been wounded before he fell out of the
aircraft, whether he was wounded when he was on the ground, or whether
the case, as has been pointed out, I'm told, in the media took place,
I'm not sure yet. And I think as we work our way through this we will
come to some greater clarity. But right now, I think we'll -- if we're
not careful, we'll be victimized by what we know to be the truth, and
that is the first two or three reports are likely to be wrong.
And so we will continue to provide the facts as we know them.
(Cross talk.)
Rumsfeld: Wait -- wait -- wait -- wait one second. Wait one second.
I think it's a terribly important point. What we're doing is people in
the press are with these forces and they're reporting what they see,
and what they see is a certain perspective. They see it from a certain
angle, they see an aspect. We're getting reports back from people, and
as the general says, they're first reports or second reports. And we
know that history is replete with instances where the first or second
reports are wrong. It was announced that there were nine dead
Americans. It turns out there were eight.
And so you're faced with a choice. Do you try to respond as fully as
you can and caution people that the first reports may not be correct,
or -- and then be subjected to, "Well, didn't you know this when you
said that?" -- that type of a question that you posed. And it seems to
me that people have to develop the ability to absorb these kinds of
reports in the press, reports from the podium, with an understanding
that they're going to be calibrated, they're inevitably going to be
calibrated as a day or two or 48 hours goes by and additional
perspectives come in.
Q: General Franks?
Q: General --
Franks: If I could -- if I could, just one more -- one more quick one.
There will be a lot of views on this particular incident. And that is
not speculation. I will tell you that I have talked to three, maybe
four people who were either present or have reviewed the result of
this, and it would probably not surprise you that each of the three or
four has a different view of what happened.
And so I think what we are seeing response to is a comment that is one
of those views. And I think the secretary's remarks are right. I'd
rather get it out there and then -- and have -- all of us understand
that we will develop the truth over time, because there's not a desire
to hide it.
Q: Okay. General --
Rumsfeld: Let me -- one other thing that I think is worth mentioning.
I think what is important about this instance is not whether a -- we
know a fine American's dead. It is not whether the bullet hit him from
ground fire while he was still in the helicopter or after he fell to
the ground and hit by ground fire or after someone came up and shot
him again. We may never know that. That was a matter of minutes.
What's important about this is that the United States of America did
not decide to withdraw and leave the field. It decided -- those forces
decided to go in, bring a helicopter in, get the body, get the wounded
and get them to safety. And the United States of America is leaning
forward and not back.
Q: General --
Q: General Franks, you mentioned that there were only 5,200 American
troops in Afghanistan at this time. This is less than the designated
end strength of the peacekeeping force for Kabul only. Do you foresee
a need to increase the number of American forces in Afghanistan to
deal with these -- this engagement and other ones? And are you
planning to bring additional capabilities into the fight for beyond
the Cobras? For example, 105 artillery -- is such artillery in
Afghanistan at this time?
Franks: I think it's a good question, and I would not predict it. I
would simply say that one of the things never in doubt, since the 7th
of October, is that this nation would stand and deliver force to me
for our use in Afghanistan as it might be necessary to do that. I
wouldn't predict whether the number will be 52 down to 45 or what
particular kind of assets we would put to it.
I think the key in this case is that neither the secretary nor the
president has taken any of the capability of this nation off the
table. And so what we have done in each case is respond to the needs
of a given tactical or operational environment. I can tell you as
commander in chief that I respond to that kind of leadership.
And I can -- and I wouldn't put words in the secretary's mouth, but my
suspicion is that if in the days ahead the force requires modification
-- I didn't say enlargement -- if the force requires modification to
conduct a different sort of operation, I would anticipate receiving
the support to be able to put that kind of force in place. And I can't
predict what it will be.
Q: Does it require modification and what type?
Franks: It could require additional gunships, as you suggested, beyond
Apaches or Cobras. It could require additional lift. It could require
additional infantry. It might require additional special operating
forces.
Rumsfeld: It's also a little misleading to only cite the number of
U.S. personnel on the ground in Afghanistan, because there are
substantially greater forces in very short distances away.
Franks: Right.
Rumsfeld: And you mentioned 105s. And, of course, the AC- 130 has 105
howitzers that are being used to great effect at the --
Q: General Franks, is there any evidence that any of the al Qaeda or
Taliban in the 60-70 square mile area have tried to escape, have
escaped? And if they don't appear willing to surrender themselves or
their positions, how will the U.S. know when it's won this Operation
Anaconda?
Franks: What we'll do inside this operational area is we will continue
to search and clear, confirm and deny until we have cleared the
entirety of this particular area which we named as the objective: that
is, the mission that the force entered with. The sense right now is
that there has been no major effort of the forces inside this
objective, of the enemy forces inside this objective area to leave.
And I think the choice they have is the one that was mentioned
previously: either to surrender or they will be killed.
You'll recall on Monday I mentioned the -- I mentioned the positioning
of a number of additional forces around the objective area for the
purpose of being able to identify what we call leakers, or people who
would try to escape. If there is --
Rumsfeld: In a press room, the word "leaker" means something entirely
-- (laughter).
Franks: Well, I have that, sir. (Laughter.)
But that's the way we'll approach it.
Q: General Franks --
Rumsfeld: Wait, wait, wait, wait. The -- it is -- you ask how might
things change. The -- it's possible that additional al Qaeda or
Taliban could come from the mountains or from the villages or from
across the borders. And to the extent that happened, that could change
the situation. And that's fine, because we're looking for them,
wherever they are. And to the extent that additional forces are
needed, we'll put what is needed to do the job.
Q: General, can I ask a question? Just to follow-up quickly on an
earlier question about the size of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
You said on Monday that you hadn't yet recommended to the president or
the secretary about a modification or increase in the size. Did you in
fact do so this morning, give any kind of a recommendation about
changes --
Franks: Very honestly, I did not. And part of the reason is because
what we have is the force that we have in Afghanistan, and I think
we've reported somewhere around 60,000 people, U.S. forces, in the
totality of this area. And so even when we have repositioned the
Marine assets that we talked about a minute ago, they didn't come from
outside the area; this is simply tactical repositioning within our
theater.
And so while I will talk every day with the secretary and advise him
of the way we are moving forces around, I don't get guidance on that,
and so no, I have not asked either the secretary or the president to
provide additional forces.
Rumsfeld: And if he had, he wouldn't mention it in the press room.
(Laughter.)
Q: Mr. Secretary --
Rumsfeld: Wait a second! Wait a second! I'll tell you what we do,
we're closing in on time. Why don't we try and take one question from
a number of people, and we'll try to give relatively short answers.
Yes?
Q: You made a point earlier; I wondered if you could elaborate on it.
It was on the issue of the video of the one sailor, one brave
American, falling to his death. And you had said that this
demonstrates the U.S. is not going to pull out. It does, however, send
a reminder of that Black Hawk Down, when Americans came out of the
helicopter and were dragged through the streets. I wonder if there was
any concern about mentioning the video of the sailor falling and being
dragged away by al Qaeda because of concerns that the American people
might start being more aghast at the deaths of Americans?
Rumsfeld: There is -- other than very brave people being involved,
this has nothing to do with Mogadishu. And the individual who was
killed, his body has been retrieved, and so too, have the wounded. And
I don't see any comparison.
Yes?
Q: General -- General Franks, you mentioned that you agreed with
General Hagenbeck's characterization of the battlefield situation now
in the objective area. But he said specifically that it was his
understanding that local leaders had been funneling and infiltrating
fighters into this area. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? Can
you also tell us whether or not you believe that these fighters are
able to communicate on some tactical level with these fighters in
other parts of that objective area?
Franks: I believe that these pockets within the objective area will
try to do what I described on Monday; I think they will, in fact, try
to communicate with other pockets.
Now let me define "pocket." In some cases, you may have five enemy
troops who are in possession of a mortar. In other cases, you may have
25 enemy troops who are across a valley. I am sure that they will try
to communicate with one another. To what effect, I'm not sure. The key
is that whatever enemy forces we find in this area -- and I doubt -- I
doubt that that many will be able to escape -- will either surrender
or they'll be killed or --
Q: But are additional enemy fighters being able to now infiltrate
inside the objective area --
Franks: Once again, I would not take issue with the tactical commander
on the ground. I will say that at my level I have not seen evidence of
formations trying to get into the objective area, although it would
not surprise me, Eric (sp), if there were small pockets -- you know,
where we've drawn our line, there may be small pockets of forces
outside that line, and they may in fact try to move in there. But I
have not seen movement across international borders or anything like
-- yes?
Q: General, what about coalition forces? Can you give us some details
about any casualties, deaths or injuries, among the Afghan and
non-Afghan coalition forces, either in or out of combat, in this
operation?
Franks: The -- I think the number that we talked about this morning
was -- the ones I know of are three Afghan(s) killed in action and
perhaps 15, 20, 25 Afghans wounded in action. The Afghans have been a
part of this operation, and I would suspect that they would -- that
they'd continue to be a part of it.
And in terms of coalition forces, I've not seen evidence of any death
or wounding of coalition forces in Operation Anaconda.
Rumsfeld: Yes? Real quick.
Q: Let's back you up to the number that you gave when you said
2(hundred) to 300 more American troops are arriving.
Franks: Right.
Q: What does that bring the total to? And are these troops moving in
from within the objective area into a battle zone? Are they being
brought in from other parts of Afghanistan?
Franks: The answer is both, to the above. We have brought in some
additional aviation assets. I mentioned we have repositioned forces
within the objective area. And of course, we have some additional
forces that we move in and out for troop rotation and this sort of
activity. And so the number, legitimately, is up 2(hundred) to 300
from the number that I discussed on Monday.
Q: Well, so is there --
Rumsfeld: We'll take three more. We'll take --
Q: -- (off mike) --
Rumsfeld: Wait, let's -- why don't we do one question, if we could.
We'll take three more. One.
Q: With this ability to -- for commanders in the chain of command to
see the battlefield in real time, as well as have instant replays, how
do you prevent micromanaging?
Franks: That's a great question. You prevent micromanaging by
permitting and encouraging commanders to make the judgments that they
make on the ground, and then, at the end of the day, after the fact,
to seek the opportunity to review and then ask whom within the chain
of command may have learned something. And that's the approach.
Now what that does is, it means that we will not micromanage day to
day, either from this level to me or from my level to our commanders
on the ground.
They are making judgments based on what they see, and that's one of
the reasons that I will not take issue with what they report, although
it may well be that we'll discuss what they report.
Q: General, are you bringing in the helicopter -- or the additional
helicopter gunships because of what happened on Monday with the two
Chinooks that ran into trouble?
Franks: No. What we find is, this is a very, very dangerous
environment for attack helicopters to operate in. I think some of the
very early reporting indicated that we had some of our attack
helicopters with bullet holes in them. What we want to be sure of is
that we have sufficient helicopters -- it is not in response to a
particular thing, but what we want to be sure of is that we have
enough gunships or attack helicopters to be able to do anything that
may happen in the objective area.
Rumsfeld: Last question.
Q: You had said a minute ago that the incident involving the Navy SEAL
evolved over a matter of minutes. Can you elaborate on that a little
bit? Are you talking about from when he fell or did not get back on
the helicopter until this ended, what General Hagenbeck saw on the
Predator, or how long do you believe he was in the custody of al
Qaeda? And was there any mistreatment of him that was in evidence on
his body?
Rumsfeld: I have not watched the video.
Franks: I haven't seen it.
Rumsfeld: And you've not watched the video. What I said was that there
was firing from the ground at the helicopter. He was in the
helicopter. We do not know whether or not he was shot while he was in
the helicopter. We know that when the helicopter departed that area
abruptly under fire, he either was not in it, or shortly thereafter he
was not in it, but he was roughly in the same location where the
helicopter had been. So it was a matter of a very short flight for
him, if he was not already out of the helicopter before the helicopter
departed.
What took place thereafter, I -- you've heard several reports, as the
general said. At some point, why, people will merge all of those
different perspectives and views and something will come out of it
that will be fairly definitive.
Q: Was there any evidence that he was mistreated while -- if he were
in al Qaeda custody at some point, is there evidence that he was
mistreated, tortured, anything like that?
Rumsfeld: As I said, I have not seen the tape, I do not know if that's
on the tape, and that the people who have seen the tape have commented
on the subject. Whether or not he was dead or alive when whatever took
place did take place, it -- it seems to me that one ought to be
willing to allow some time to pass over something like this so that
the people who are looking at these things can come to some
conclusions. And what's important is that a brave man died and he has
been removed from the battle and his remains are en route back to the
United States.
Q: You're not prepared to say that a prisoner was -- American prisoner
was executed.
Rumsfeld: My goodness. I don't know how we could be any clearer.
Q: Well, your own commanders have offered -- who have seen the tapes
have --
Rumsfeld: And we have said we have not seen the tape.
Q: Why haven't you?
Q: Why haven't you?
Q: Right. Do you have -- General Franks -- I mean, with great respect,
sir, the family has now, since last night, heard this report. They
must be wondering what has happened. They must want some fairly
immediate word from the military, who can tell them with some
precision, and I would think the military would --
Rumsfeld: Well, look, let's be realistic. The general has got an
enormous area of responsibility. He's got -- how many countries?
Franks: Twenty-five.
Rumsfeld: Twenty-five countries. He has a general officer engaged in
this operation, who is doing a --
Franks: Several of them.
Rumsfeld: A good job.
Franks: Right.
Rumsfeld: He has been engaged with me in thinking about tomorrow and
the next day and the next month and the next months. And the people on
the ground are addressing this.
And I think that that is exactly the way these things ought to be
handled.
Q: I think the question is whether or not General Franks has now some
reason to believe there is a plausible alternative scenario to the one
that his commanders in the field articulated to the news media.
Franks: Let me -- let me say this: I think it's very difficult to add
to what the secretary has said, except that one should appreciate that
to review the tape is not like reviewing Monday Night Football tape. I
mean, that's very key. I mentioned a minute ago that in fact several
of the commanders and people in Afghanistan have reviewed the tapes,
and they have come to different conclusions. The fact that one view
has been widely reported I acknowledge. Now whether that is an
accurate view or not is something that will be based not only on my
viewing, because the result of that will be imperfect, but in, as the
secretary said, the discussion with other people who were present so
that we -- so that we get truth in the thing.
Rumsfeld: And I think, in closing, that it would be unfair and
improper to draw a conclusion that the general or I are not interested
in this individual's death. We are.
Thank you.
Franks: Thank you.
Q: See you tomorrow. (Laughter.)
Q: Not after that note.
(end Pentagon transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
